We have all been beaten over the head with the notion that the so-called women's movement makes its home in the forward thinking, enlightened enclaves of the liberal intelligentsia of the Democrat party. This theory always became problematic when something occurred off the heroic narrative, usually a non-liberal woman rising to prominence in some position or another, in which case her accomplishment was marginalized and her character denigrated. There have been numerous examples of women receiving short shrift and ridicule from the left, including ambassador to the U.N. Jean Kirkpatrick, Secretary of Defense Condolezza Rice, and of course the most outrageous example of leftward hypocrisy, the treatment of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who received abuse from the left, and from feminists in particular, for no reason of substance, other than the fact that she was a woman. The failure of the women's movement to acknowledge and support these women was remarkable for its hypocrisy. Thus we should not be alarmed or disturbed to find more of the same with the recent results from the primaries, as stated on Thursday's Good Morning America.
"Former New Yorker editor Tina Brown appeared on Thursday's Good Morning America to deride the mostly Republican women who won primaries on Tuesday as "wingnuts" and to sneer that they represent a "blow to feminism."
How are these women a blow to feminism? If this is how it breaks, then I gotta say to hell with feminism. I'm turning in my 'Feminist' membership card.
After Stephanopoulos recited the numerous women who won nominations on June 8, the current Daily Beast editor dismissed, "...The only trouble with this one is, it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism."
These clowns are pathetic. Do you think they realize how ridiculous they sound?
"I think it's quite interesting that the whole CEO movement out there in California. Because, here we are with all the Wall Street consternation and, yet, they're touting their credentials as major CEOs as qualifications."
Right. Being successful in business, some of these women extremely successful in business, is a dis qualifier for high government office. Knowing how to run a company, work with people, make executive decisions all disqualifies you from working with these bozos. Geez. I can see how that might be the case in the Obama administration - you'd stick out like a sore thumb - don't you think some practical know how might be helpful in government?
Well, though I myself may be bewildered and befuddled by how they come to their various conclusions, I shan’t loose much sleep over it.
As I understand it, Carly F. *wasn't* "successful in business." As I understand it, her only qualification to be CEO of HP was in her XX chromosomes ... and she promptly ran the company into the ground.
ReplyDeleteWhich is not to say than many XY CEOs have not done likewise. But, they were not given the spot solely on their sex.
Well, I cannot say whether she managed HP well or not, and I am ready to take your word for it, as far as that goes.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, there is a striking lack of enthusiasm on the part of those dedicated to promoting women and women's issues, which is to say, they are for women, but not these women. They care about women, but they don't care for these women. Ordinarily, they would be happy to see women advance in politics, as they said with Hilary Clinton, they feel it is time this nation had a woman president, but in the case of these particular women, they wonder about the wisdom of advancing candidates with executive experience.
Please. It is such a crock. They have not undermined the candidacy of these women. What they have accomplished is to succesfully undermined their own credibility on women's issues and placed into question why anyone would ever want to listen to their opinion again.